Providing for Consideration of H.R. Women's Health Protection Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year Providing for Consideration of H.R. Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act; and for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 667 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 667

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3755) to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4350) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2022 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-13, modified by the amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or their respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in section 3 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc described in section 4 of this resolution; and (4) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 3. After debate pursuant to section 2 of this resolution, each further amendment printed in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 4 of this resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Sec. 4. It shall be in order at any time after debate pursuant to section 2 of this resolution for the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Sec. 5. All points of order against the further amendments printed in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc described in section 4 of this resolution are waived.

Sec. 6. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5305) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for providing emergency assistance, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 7. (a) At any time through the legislative day of Friday, September 24, 2021, the Speaker may entertain motions offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without debate or intervening motion.

(b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules on the legislative day of July 26, 2021, July 27, 2021, or September 21, 2021, in the form as so offered, on which the yeas and nays were ordered and further proceedings postponed pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX.

(c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection (a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such motions are considered as withdrawn.

Sec. 8. (a) Notwithstanding clause 8 of rule XX or section 7 of House Resolution 555, further proceedings on a vote by the yeas and nays on the question of adoption of a motion that the House suspend the rules offered on the legislative day of July 26, 2021, or July 27, 2021, may continue to be postponed through the legislative day of October 1, 2021.

(b) Notwithstanding clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on a vote by the yeas and nays on the question of adoption of a motion that the House suspend the rules offered on the legislative day of September 21, 2021 may be postponed through the legislative day of October 1, 2021.

Sec. 9. House Resolution 188, agreed to March 8, 2021 (as most recently amended by House Resolution 555, agreed to July 27, 2021), is amended by striking ``September 22, 2021'' each place it appears and inserting (in each instance) ``October 27, 2021''.

Sec. 10. The ordering of the yeas and nays on the motion that the House suspend the rules and pass S. 2382 is vacated to the end that the motion be considered as withdrawn.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 667, providing for consideration of three measures.

First, H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act, under a closed rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Pallone, provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Smith, provides 1 hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, and provides one motion to recommit. The rule makes in order 476 amendments, provides en bloc authority, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 5305, the Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on certain suspension bills through September 24. Requested roll call votes on certain suspension bills may be postponed through October 1.

Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension authority, and same day authority to October 27 and provides that the ordering of the yeas and nays on the motion that the House suspend the rules and pass S. 2382 is vacated.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the three bills in this rule, H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022; H.R. 5305, the continuing resolution; and H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act.

I want to start by recognizing the contributions of the North Carolinians and all American servicemembers who served in Afghanistan over the past 20 years. Your sacrifices will never be forgotten.

It is in honor of these American heroes that I am proud to support the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act. This bill invests in our servicemembers and their families and ensures that the United States is ready to confront future threats to our Nation.

This NDAA provides our men and women in uniform with a 2.7 percent pay increase; makes critical changes to how the military addresses sexual assault; and improves TRICARE coverage and benefits, including by removing cost sharing for contraceptive coverage.

I am grateful that three of my amendments were made in order. Two of these amendments aim to support military women and families by requiring reports on access to menstrual products and accommodations and on potential TRICARE coverage of preconception and prenatal genetic carrier screening tests.

My other amendment expands the definition of PFAS to better align with the current science. This change will help keep our servicemembers and all Americans safe from toxic chemicals.

In addition to supporting our military personnel, this legislation supports American innovation through a 32 percent increase in defense- wide research, development, testing, and evaluation. It also ensures that our HBCUs and other minority institutions are more able to contribute to DOD research and development.

Finally, this bill continues our commitment to supporting our Afghan allies by authorizing $500 million for the Department of Defense to support the relocation of at-risk Afghans.

The continuing resolution included in this rule also supports efforts to evacuate our allies from Afghanistan. Afghans arriving to the U.S. or awaiting processing overseas need medical care, food, housing, and other assistance. This funding will ensure the government agencies involved in the resettlement process have the capacity necessary to help our Afghan allies build new lives in safety in the United States.

In addition, the continuing resolution ensures that our government remains funded, raises the debt ceiling, and provides relief to areas devastated by Hurricane Ida and other natural disasters.

Democrat or Republican, we are all Americans. We all benefit when our democracy and economy are healthy, and we all suffer when our country is in crisis.

Every Member in this body was elected to represent our fellow Americans. It would be a dishonor to the trust they bestowed upon us if we let the government shut down or allow the country to default on the full faith and credit of the United States.

This CR will provide much-needed relief to communities devastated by recent hurricanes and other disasters like the California wildfires.

Thousands of homes have been destroyed, and many Americans still have limited access to fresh water and electricity. Additional delays in relief could be the difference between life and death.

Lastly, this rule includes the Women's Health Protection Act, which safeguards reproductive freedom for people across this country.

Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for nearly 50 years. With this bill, the House is stepping in following the Supreme Court's failure to uphold decades of American jurisprudence.

This bill affirms what our Constitution and international human rights bodies have long upheld: that access to reproductive care is central to health and equality. A woman living in Texas should have the same access to care as a woman living in California.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ROSS. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Military.com article entitled ``Defense Bills Would Provide New Food Allowance for Low- Income Military Families.'' [From Military.com, July 27, 2021] Defense Bills Would Provide New Food Allowance for Low-Income Military Families (By Patricia Kime)

A House panel is weighing a $770 billion defense policy bill that includes a provision to give lower-income military families a basic needs allowance--a stipend that advocacy groups say would relieve stress and ``food insecurity'' among U.S. troops.

The draft of the House's 2022 National Defense Authorization Act released Tuesday contains a provision similar to the Senate's proposal that would provide service members additional money for food and other basics if their household incomes do not exceed 130% of the federal poverty level--which in 2021 meant $21,960 for a family of three, $26,500 for a family of four, and slightly higher for even larger families.

This is the third time the proposal has been incorporated into the House defense policy bill; unlike previous years, it also has been included in the 2022 Senate defense bill, increasing the likelihood that it will pass later this year.

For an E-4 with several years in the military, a spouse and two children, the stipend could equate to roughly $250 extra a month.

Advocates say the provision is needed as junior military service members face the stresses of supporting families in areas where spouse employment is low or child-care expenses make it difficult to pay monthly bills.

``When I got to the [Defense Department], I started talking about food insecurity, and I really did get a look that said to me, `We really don't think we have a problem,' '' Patty Barron, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Military Community and Family Policy, said at an event on military and veterans food insecurity Tuesday.

The data is mixed on the extent of food insecurity among military families. This year, the Defense Department's Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation found that an estimated 880 to 4,690 U.S. service members use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, a rate of between .08% and .42% of troops. Civilian usage of SNAP, also known as food stamps, is 9.6%.

Critics note, however, that the report pulled data from only two months in 2019, and the data does not include numbers from 40% of states, including several with large military populations such as California, Hawaii and Virginia.

``The reason we thought we didn't have a problem is, we were looking at the low SNAP numbers, and we believe we are compensating our people well, and if not, they will promote out of it and get those pay raises to solve the problem,'' Barron added.

``The department is much more aware of the issue now, and it is one of Secretary [Lloyd] Austin's biggest priorities,'' Barron said during the discussion hosted by the Center For Strategic and International Studies.

A survey released in May found that nearly 33% of more than 5,600 respondents at an unidentified Army installation were considered marginally food insecure, meaning they faced food hardship or had difficulties ensuring that their food budget stretched through the end of the month.

And according to a report from the organization MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, one in eight military families experiences food insecurity compared with one in 10 in the U.S. civilian population.

``The mental health of our service members is key to their long-term connection to the military and the well-being of their families, and given that we find service members' mental health is associated with food insecurity, addressing food insecurity may be one way to address [mental health issues],'' said Matthew Rabbitt, an economist with the USDA Economic Research Service, during the CSIS event.

The House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee will consider its portion of the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act on Wednesday. The bill is expected to be debated by the full committee on Sept. 1 and must be reconciled with the Senate's version before it can become law.

The proposed legislation provides for a 2.7% pay raise for military personnel in 2022 and a number of other benefits, including an increase in parental leave for service members and designated caregivers as well as foster parents, expansion of the department's in-home, child-care pilot program and the establishment of an advisory council to support the services' Exceptional Family Member Programs.

Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that members of our armed services and their families are going hungry. I have heard about this in my home State of North Carolina, where there are food banks associated with military bases.

I am grateful that this 2022 NDAA will provide servicemembers additional money for food and other basic needs. No one in America should go hungry, especially those serving our country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ROSS. Speier).

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2022 NDAA authorizes funding for cybersecurity investments in people, programs, and technology. It directs the executive branch to establish a cyber-threat information collaboration environment which will facilitate the transmission, sharing, and analysis of cyber-threat information, which is so crucial, particularly at this time.

This legislation implements key recommendations of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence by authorizing funding for key AI-related initiatives, including investments in the workforce, emerging technologies research, and support for our small business contractors.

Additionally, the legislation authorizes funding to support biological threat reduction programs, requires a publicly available report on threats regarding weapons of mass destruction by China and Russia, and directs a report on biosecurity efforts across the Department of Defense, all needed and crucial investments.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ROSS. Jackson Lee).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her leadership.

Let me make a proclamation here on the floor of the House, that when you have the responsibility of governing, you govern.

The President of the United States, President Biden, who believes in transformational government, the House and the Senate, the House under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the Senate under the leadership of Chuck Schumer. You govern. Today, we are making an enforced, pointed, and open statement about governing.

Let me quickly start with the NDAA, the vehicle that helps the men and women who put on the uniform unselfishly on our behalf. I am excited about the increase in quality-of-life dollars, the raise in personnel salaries, the concern about families. I am increasingly excited about cyber protection, and as well that we ask the hard questions about Afghanistan and how we will not see the return of such. But we are not afraid to govern by asking those questions so that we can move forward.

I am also excited about recognizing that the quality-of-life issues for our members in the military are important. The Jackson Lee amendments emphasize those points:

$10 million to fight triple-negative breast cancer impacting our women in the United States military, particularly women of color.

$2.5 million in PTSD. I have heard many times we give to PTSD, but it keeps growing and growing, and there are those in our constituency, our constituents who need these ongoing services. I have been working on this for a long time.

To recognize that we must treat our men and women that go into the United States military academies fairly. Does anyone know that they admit people with speech disorders? Good for them. But when they graduate, they are not given a command. My amendment, that I hope to become law, will determine that you analyze all of your military students to make sure they have a command when they graduate.

I am most excited about one that I will talk about quickly later.

And then, of course, we have done so much great work with the momnibus to look at maternal mortality rates for military members traveling around the world.

Space debris, to determine how we can remediate the risks and outline plans to reduce the incidence of space debris.

To be able to ensure that we stop students from being recruited when they go overseas to be engaged in spy operations. That happens. And we are glad to have that, as well as to begin looking at renaming some of these bases after historic African Americans.

Let me quickly say that amendment No. 194 should be one that we all come together on, tracing the history of the service of African Americans in the United States military, particularly in slavery, to recognize that they can be a vital legacy to the United States.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I will talk further about that as we move into the NDAA, but let me talk about my original premise of governing.

The continuing appropriations is crucial, and I support the lifting of the debt ceiling not to spend money, but--when you have responsibility to govern, you govern--to pay our bills. Does anyone want to suggest that we should not?

I am looking for a few good men and women on the other side of the aisle that will stand with us as Americans and be responsible to our fellow Americans, governing, so that we can ensure we have a supplemental food program and other aspects of it, but we have to govern.

More response to COVID-19.

And finally, it is important to give women back their rights. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and we are going to pass that legislation along with my anti-stalking and vigilante bill because people are suffering with the Texas law. It has no place in society. It is a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and it should be quashed, with the Roe v. Wade codification. I ask the other body to support us in that. I ask everyone to support the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight an amendment that is sponsored by several of our colleagues that will be in the NDAA and that we will hear more about this evening and tomorrow. It deals with PFAS, forever chemicals. We have debated issues about PFAS on this floor, but unfortunately members of our armed services sometimes end up being human guinea pigs for these PFAS.

This amendment will deal with many of these concerns. It directs the Secretary of Defense to provide DOD medical providers with mandatory training with respect to the potential health effects of PFAS. We have seen this in North Carolina, particularly at Fort Bragg.

It requires the EPA to obtain analytical reference standards for PFAS, for the development of protocols and methodologies and enforcement activities.

It clarifies the scope of PFAS data reporting from the 2020 NDAA.

It amends title III, section 318 to clarify that DOD must comply with safe incineration of PFAS as enacted in section 330 of the NDAA of fiscal year 2020.

It requires the report on DOD progress to comply with EPA safe PFAS disposal guidelines, and it requires that this report be submitted one year after enactment of the act, and it includes that they report to the Committee on Armed Services.

It requires the report to include the actions the DOD has taken to comply with that section. It defines the scope of prohibition to ensure that PFAS materials sent to third-parties for disposal are also covered by the provisions.

It expresses the sense of Congress that the Air Force has contaminated real property with PFOS and PFOA chemicals, and it should use existing authority to acquire property and provide relocation assistance.

It requires a report detailing contamination sites and acquisition and relocation status.

It requires a national primary drinking water regulation for PFAS, and clarifies congressional intent by requiring manufacturers to disclose all PFAS discharges over 100 pounds.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out some additional benefits of this NDAA in dealing with global challenges.

H.R. 4350 invests in tools to combat the unprecedented challenge of a global pandemic, racial inequities, and a deepening climate emergency.

The NDAA authorizes funding for national defense and prioritizes programs and policies to confront the growing threat of China and Russia.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, there are additional wonderful amendments dealing with cybersecurity that are in the NDAA.

We will hear again about another cybersecurity training pilot program for the Department of Veterans Affairs for veterans and members of the Armed Forces transitioning from service to civilian life. It creates a registered apprenticeship program at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency focused on cybersecurity and infrastructure security. Both programs will be established in coordination with the Department of Defense.

We know that we do not have enough people in civilian life with this cybersecurity training as we face these threats like we saw in my home State of North Carolina with the Colonial Pipeline.

Having this transition from DOD to civilian life and having supportive apprenticeship programs will go a long way to fighting cybersecurity.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 101 faith-based religious and civil rights organizations expressing their support for H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act. June 16, 2021. Hon. Dick Durbin, Chair, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Hon. Richard Blumenthal, Chair, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on The Constitution, Washington, DC. Hon. Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Hon. Ted Cruz, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on The Constitution, Washington, DC. 101 Faith-Based, Religious, & Civil Rights Organizations Express Support for the Women's Health Protection Act

Dear Senators Durbin, Grassley, Blumenthal, Cruz, and Committee Members: As faith-based, religious, and civil rights organizations that share a commitment to religious freedom and the separation of religion and government, we write to express our strong and unequivocal support for S 1975, the Women's Health Protection Act.

We affirm our nation's founding principle of religious liberty, which is integrally bound to reproductive freedom. Religious liberty includes the right to follow one's own faith or moral code in making critical, personal reproductive health decisions, without political interference. While we respect the right of every individual, including our lawmakers, to hold their own personal and religious beliefs, our country's Constitution demands that no one impose a single religious viewpoint on all through civil law or regulation. The Women's Health Protection Act is essential legislation that embodies these shared ideals.

The Women's Health Protection Act is urgently needed. The nearly 500 abortion bans and restrictions enacted since 2011 have severely reduced or eliminated abortion access in large swaths of the country and fall hardest on those who already face barriers to accessing health care--including women; Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC); those working to make ends meet; members of the LGBTQI+ community; immigrants; young people; those living in rural communities; and people with disabilities. The Women's Health Protection Act is an important bill that would enact protections on the federal level to safeguard access to high-quality care and to secure constitutional rights by protecting patients and providers from political or religious interference.

Rather than face onerous barriers due to their economic status, employment status, or zip code, this bill would ensure that each person can make a decision about abortion led by their own circumstances, faith, or beliefs. It would also protect the religious liberty of individual health care providers seeking to administer quality care to their patients and enable providers to deliver abortion services free from burdensome restrictions designed to impede access rather than improve patient health.

We believe in compassion, justice, and dignity for all, compelling us to speak out for social justice and the right of every person to access comprehensive, affordable, and equitable reproductive health care. A compassionate nation ensures equal access to quality, timely health abortion care for everyone, an essential factor to social and economic participation, reproductive and moral autonomy, and the right to determine our own lives. In contrast, laws that limit the availability of abortion disrespect human dignity, erode constitutional rights, exact far-reaching health and economic consequences, and ignore the moral agency of physicians seeking to provide compassionate care.

Furthermore, laws that eliminate options for some based on their geographic location are profoundly unjust, pushing care out of reach for the most marginalized among us. We cannot remain idle as state laws transform our country into a map of ``haves and have-nots'' with regard to access to reproductive health services. We call on Congress to pass Women's Health Protection Act to protect access to abortion and to help us build a society where all can participate equally and thrive in our communities with dignity.

Every day, we support equal, fair, and comprehensive access to health care and respect for personal decision-making. We support the Women's Health Protection Act as a means to this end and urge you and your colleagues to do the same. The 117th Congress must act in solidarity with people and communities fighting for racial, economic, and reproductive justice and commit to protecting the right of every person to make their own decisions about their bodies, free from discrimination and political interference. It is the right thing to do.

Please contact Shannon Russell, Legislative Counsel at the National Council of Jewish Women, with any questions or for additional information.

Respectfully,

National Council of Jewish Women, Catholics for Choice, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Union for Reform Judaism, Women of Reform Judaism. National Organizations

A Critical Mass: Women Celebrating Eucharist; African American Ministers In Action (AAMIA); ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal; Ameinu; American Atheists; American Humanist Association; American Jewish World Service; Anti-Defamation League; Avodah; Bend the Arc: Jewish Action; CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Chicago Women-Church; Clergy Advocacy Board of Planned Parenthood Federation of America; CORPUS; Disciples Justice Action Network; Episcopal Women's Caucus; Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Global Justice Institute (MCC); Habonim Dror North America; Human Rights Campaign; Interfaith Voices for Reproductive Justice; Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action; Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA); Jewish Women International; Jews United for Justice; Keshet; Methodist Federation for Social Action; Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC); Moving Traditions; Muslim Advocates; Muslims for Progressive Values; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN); National Organization for Women.

Network of Jewish Human Service Agencies; People For the American Way; Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options; Rabbinical Assembly; Reconstructing Judaism, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; Religious Institute; Society for Humanistic Judaism; Tivnu: Building Justice; T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights; Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation; United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; Voices for Progress; We Testify; Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and Ritual (WATER); Women's League for Conservative Judaism; Women's Ordination Conference. State & Local Organizations

Florida Interfaith Coalition for Reproductive Health and Justice; Jewish Community Action; Just Texas: Faith Voices for Reproductive Freedom; Michigan Organization on Adolescent Sexual Health (MOASH); Michigan Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Network (MUUSJN); National Council of Jewish Women, Arizona Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Atlanta Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Austin Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Chicago North Shore Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Cleveland Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Colorado Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Essex County Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Greater Dallas Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Greater Long Beach & West Orange County Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Greater New Orleans Section.

National Council of Jewish Women, Houston Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Jersey Hills Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Kansas City Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Maine Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Milwaukee Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Minnesota Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Nashville Section; National Council of Jewish Women, New York Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Northern Virginia; National Council of Jewish Women, Palm Beach Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Peninsula Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Pittsburgh Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Sacramento Section; National Council of Jewish Women, San Antonio Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Sarasota-Manatee Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Southeast Atlantic Section.

National Council of Jewish Women, South Cook Section; National Council of Jewish Women, St. Louis Section; Nebraska Religious Council for Reproductive Freedom; New Mexico Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Ohio Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; PA Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice; Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice of Connecticut, Inc.; Rhode Island Religious Coalition for Reproductive Freedom; Sister Reach; South Carolina Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Texas Freedom Network; United Church of Christ Detroit Area Social Justice Team.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National Nurses United, dated September 21 expressing their resounding support for H.R. 3755.

The letter states: ``On behalf of the 175,000 registered nurses represented by the National Nurses United, we write to you today to endorse the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 sponsored by Representative Chu. We strongly urge you to vote `yes' on this critical piece of legislation when it is brought to the floor of the House of Representatives.'' National Nurses United, September 21, 2021.

Dear Representative: National Nurses United supports the right of all women and people who can get pregnant to full and equal healthcare services, including reproductive and family planning health services as a fundamental human right. On behalf of the 175,000 registered nurses represented by National Nurses United (NNU), we write to you today to endorse the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 (HR 3755) sponsored by Representative Judy Chu. We strongly urge you to vote yes on this critical piece of legislation when it is brought to a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.

The Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA) establishes a statutory right for health professionals to provide abortion care without any medically unnecessary restrictions or limitations that impede access to abortion. With increasing attacks on reproductive rights, it is critical that Congress swiftly takes steps to protect access to abortion and reproductive health care.

Nurses, the majority of whom are women, play an essential role in the delivery of reproductive health services for millions of patients every day, and we have a duty to advocate for the health and safety of our patients. Without access to abortion services, patients who are pregnant may be at risk of illness and death due to pregnancy, or may be at risk of avoidable complications from unsafe and illegal abortion practices. Further, access to quality reproductive healthcare allows people to make decisions for themselves on whether and when to have children, an essential component of equality that enables full participation in our society. Nurses know that unless we bring down the barriers to care, people will go without the necessary healthcare they deserve.

The decision to have an abortion is a decision that should be made between a person and their healthcare providers--it is not a decision that politicians have any right to be engaged in. Patients have the right to seek abortion care with the counsel of a trusted healthcare provider, regardless of where they live, and it is critical that Congress protects that right.

We urge you to stand with nurses and vote yes on HR 3755 to protect the right of all people to access abortion care and reproductive health services. Sincerely, Bonnie Castillo, RN,

Executive Director, National Nurses United. Deborah Burger, RN,

President, National Nurses United. Zenei Cortez, RN,

President, National Nurses United. Jean Ross, RN,

President, National Nurses United.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 20 medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Medical Women's Association, to name a few, expressing their support for H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act. June 14, 2021. Hon. Richard Blumenthal, U.S Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Judy Chu, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Blumenthal and Representative Chu: On behalf of the undersigned medical organizations, representing physicians dedicated to advancing the health of our patients, thank you for introducing the Women's Health Protection Act (S. 1975/H.R. 3755). The purpose of your legislation--to protect the patient-physician relationship and preserve the ability of physicians to provide evidence-based care to their patients----is critically important.

Federal, state, and local lawmakers have long played an important role in our health care system. The myriad policies aimed at addressing the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency provide a prime example of legislators acting to improve the health of their constituents. However, physician leaders have long raised concerns, including in a New England Journal of Medicine commentary nearly a decade ago, about the alarming increase in legislators ``overstepping the proper limits of their role in the health care of Americans to dictate the nature and content of patients' interactions with their physicians.'' This overreach has taken many forms, including creating unnecessary obstacles for patients trying to access medically appropriate care, forcing physicians to practice outside the bounds of evidence-based medicine, and criminalizing physicians for providing compassionate and evidence-based care. The communities most impacted by these barriers are those already experiencing grave inequities in the health care system. The Women's Health Protection Act would address an area of medicine systematically targeted with government overregulation--reproductive health care--by prohibiting these inappropriate restrictions and restoring the ability of patients to receive comprehensive care free from legislative intrusion.

Thank you again for sponsoring this important legislation to prevent legislative interference in the practice of medicine and protect the patient-physician relationship. Sincerely,

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Physicians; American Gynecological & Obstetrical Society (AGOS); American Medical Women's Association (AMWA); American Psychiatric Association; American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology (CUCOG); Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology (IDSOG).

North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology; Society of Academic Specialists in General Obstetrics and Gynecology; Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine; Society of Family Planning; Society of Gynecologic Oncology; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine; Society of OB/ GYN Hospitalists; Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility; Western Association of Gynecologic Oncologists (WAGO); Womxn's Health Collaborative.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 16 attorneys general expressing their support for H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act. State of New York, Office of the Attorney General, June 16, 2021. Hon. Dick Durbin, Chair, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Hon. Richard Blumenthal, Chair, Senate Committee on the Constitution, Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Hon. Ted Cruz, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairs and Ranking Members of the Committee and Subcommittee: As the Supreme Court has consistently recognized, ``[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.'' Accordingly, laws that impose an undue burden on a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy are unconstitutional. Nonetheless, many states across the country have enacted laws in the name of promoting women's health that do not, in fact, advance women's health or safety but are instead designed to restrict access to abortion services. These include laws requiring physicians have admitting privileges at hospitals and setting arbitrary requirements at women's health clinics for the size of procedure rooms and corridors. As the Attorneys General of our respective states, we write in support of the Women's Health Protection Act, which would protect the constitutional right to abortion by prohibiting medically unnecessary restrictions that specifically target abortion providers and undermine the availability of abortion services.

The Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA) targets onerous state laws that have been adopted in a concerted strategy to restrict access to abortion. In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas law that required abortion providers to maintain admitting privileges at a local hospital failed to advance women's health and posed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion. Last year, a coalition of 22 attorneys general helped to win another victory in June Medical Services v. Gee, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020), in which the Supreme Court held that a similar law in Louisiana was unconstitutional. Rather than waiting for medically unnecessary restrictions to continue to be challenged in the courts--a process that can often take years--Congress should pass the WHPA to ensure that such restrictions are not imposed in the first place. Medically unnecessary restrictions targeting abortion providers actually disserve women's health and safety and pose challenges for states that aim to provide a full range of reproductive health services, including abortion services.

Often, strict requirements imposed on abortion providers are presented as measures to protect and advance women's health. Yet evidence shows that these restrictions instead lead to worse health outcomes for women. One recent study in Texas found that the maternal mortality rate in the state doubled between 2010 and 2012, a period in which access to women's health care services, including abortion services, had become more difficult to obtain. Women who find themselves too far from an abortion provider may have to delay obtaining an abortion, which can. lead to health risks and add to the cost of the procedure. Alternatively, some women may resort to ``black market'' or self-induced abortions, which can be extremely dangerous and lead to serious injury or even death. And women who are forced to carry a pregnancy to term after being denied abortion services are four times more likely to develop potentially life-threatening health conditions and are substantially more likely to experience physical violence from abusive partners or family members. These statistics illustrate the very real cost to women throughout the United States from burdensome laws that restrict the availability of safe and legal abortion care. The widely known negative effects of laws targeting abortion providers undermines any argument that such laws are intended to promote women's health.

At the same time, the consequences of these laws are already evident across the country. Research from 2017 found that thirty-eight percent of women between the ages of 15 to 44 live in counties without an abortion clinic. Between 2014 and 2017, twenty-five abortion clinics shuttered in the South and the Midwest. As of June 2019, six states have only a single abortion clinic remaining. As providers close due to the impact of medically unnecessary restrictions, women are likely to be forced to travel farther and make greater sacrifices to get access to services. Unfortunately, these burdens often fall disproportionately on lower-income women who cannot afford to travel, take time off work, or find childcare in order to get to the nearest provider.

As Attorneys General, we are committed to ensuring that each state satisfies its constitutional obligation to protect the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy within its borders. Among other things, we are deeply concerned about protecting the constitutional rights of our residents who may need medical care while present as students, workers, or visitors in states with drastically restricted abortion access. In addition, a substantial reduction in the availability of abortion services in some states can cause women to seek medical care in other states, thereby straining their health care systems. Indeed, history shows that many women will cross state lines, if they have the means to do so, when abortions are unavailable in the states where they live. For example, in the nearly three years between New York State's liberalization of its abortion laws in 1970 and 1973 when the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade ruled that the right to choose was constitutionally protected, close to 350,000 women came to New York from other states where abortions were entirely or largely unavailable.In the wake of recent abortion restrictions, some states, including several of our own, have experienced a substantial influx of out-of-state patients seeking abortions as a result of reduced access in their home states.

Our states stand ready and willing to provide reproductive care services to those who need them. However, a significant and sudden increase in patients seeking abortions, especially as a consequence of laws that do not advance women's health and decrease available services, runs the risk of straining the health care systems of less restrictive states. This in turn can impair the availability of care and affect the reproductive choices of both residents and non-residents alike in those states. Our states aim to continue providing a wide range of reproductive health care services, including abortion services, but our ability to do so could be substantially burdened by the responsibility of ensuring that all women in need of abortions are able to safely obtain one. The WHPA would address this problem by safeguarding access to abortion services in all states.

We support the passage of the WHPA given how it will help to restore and facilitate access to abortion services throughout the United States, upholding this critical constitutional right. We look forward to working with you and your committees as you consider this legislation. Please let us know how we may be of assistance during this process. Sincerely, Letitia James, New York Attorney General; Rob Bonta, California Attorney General; Philip Weiser, Colorado Attorney General; William Tong, Connecticut Attorney General; Kathleen Jennings, Delaware Attorney General; Karl A. Racine, District of Columbia Attorney General; Kwame Raoul, Illinois Attorney General; Aaron Frey, Maine Attorney General; Brian E. Frosh, Maryland Attorney General; Maura Healey, Massachusetts Attorney General; Aaron Ford, Nevada Attorney General; Hector Balderas, New Mexico Attorney General; Ellen F. Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General; Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Vermont Attorney General; Mark R. Herring, Virginia Attorney General; Bob Ferguson, Washington State Attorney General.

Following the withdrawal from Afghanistan, we have a solemn duty to provide for our servicemembers and to keep our promise to our Afghan allies. The fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act will do both.

This NDAA will also invest in our Nation's defense by promoting cutting-edge research and development, much of which happens at our institutions of higher education, such as those in North Carolina's Research Triangle.

We also must pass the continuing resolution in order to support our Afghan allies, provide relief to regions recovering from Hurricane Ida and other natural disasters, suspend the debt limit, and keep our government funded.

Finally, we must pass the Women's Health Protection Act to enable women across the country to access reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.

I want to highlight a discrepancy between the rhetoric and policies of opponents of reproductive freedom, particularly those from States like mine, including Texas. These opponents claim to be pro-life, to be working to protect families and babies, but almost always, these are the same people who oppose Medicaid expansion, universal childcare, and the expansion of the child tax credit.

In the United States today, babies that do not get prenatal care are five times more likely to die than babies that do get prenatal care. Prenatal care is one of the many critical forms of healthcare that Medicaid covers.

Medicaid also provides postpartum care coverage to new mothers, and the American Rescue Plan gave States the option to extend that coverage from 60 days to 12 months. Postpartum care is key to protecting new mothers from a variety of serious conditions that can develop after birth. Similarly, universal childcare and the child tax credit are investments in babies and in families.

Today, in America, supporting children and families means supporting Medicaid expansion, affordable childcare, tax benefits for families-- all of which are included in the Build Back Better Act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 667

At the end of the resolution, add the following;

Sec. 11. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 4828) to secure the international borders of the United States, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 12. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 4828.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source